This week’s episode covers the case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, which asks once again whether neutral-looking voting laws that discriminate based on race violate whatever is left of the Voting Rights Act. The law starts at (2:30), but there are two food tangents we hope you enjoy.
This week’s episode is all about SPORTS! Brett and Nazim qualify their knowledge about college sports (including whether Nazim knows who Tim Tebow is) and then much later cover NCAA v. Alston, which asks whether regulations on student athlete benefits are a violation of anti-trust regulations. There’s no timestamp because honestly it would be too hard to figure out when things get legal.
First off, you’re welcome for that amazing episode title. Second, this episode covers the case of Republic of Germany v. Phillip, which covers how the Supreme Court uses the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to resolve property theft in the 1940s. Depending on how you view the Supreme Court, the result will probably not surprise you. Law starts at (04:50).
This week’s episode covers Facebook v. Duguid, a case involving allegations that Facebook violated federal law, defenses under the First Amendment, judicial interpretations of statutes, and how you could interrupt someone’s dinner in the 1980s. The law starts at (10:30).
You may think that Star Wars and the case of Van Buren v. U.S. have nothing in common; however, this episode strives to show how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should have had greater impact on Princess Leia and the Resistance at large. Brett and Nazim discuss how the Court should interpret the term access, but not before revealing their favorite Star Wars characters. Nazim’s answer shouldn’t surprise you. Law starts at (13:50).
This week’s episode involves Nazim, a Big Computer Boy, explaining the case of Google v. Oracle to Brett, a complete Luddite. In addition to explaining fair use and its application to computer language, your boys also discuss Pokemon, Jurassic Park, Akira and Nintendo to keep things extra hip and cool. The law starts at (07:20) and we’re happy to see you.
Gather round, children, to hear the story of RFRA-MAS, as told by Brett and Nazim to a live google-hangout crowd. RFRA Claus and Burwell the Elf discuss the history of RFRA, it’s current application in the case of Tanzin v. Tanzir, and then take audience questions. The podcast is taking a holiday break, but will return on January 24th, 2021. Merry RFRA-MAS to all and to all a good night.
Correction: Masks are the BEST Everyday Defense Against Respiratory Infection
Posted: December 21, 2020 by Nazim in Legislation, Public HealthListener Blumie highlighted that I (Nazim) was rather irresponsible in describing the impact of masks on coronavirus transmission rates. I apologize: wearing respiratory masks is absolutely the best way to decrease coronavirus infection rates in everyday situations, along with distancing and regularly washing our hands.
What I was trying to describe, and may have failed to, was the results of the large scale meta-study that compares the findings of 172 published studies on the factors that influence infection rates in real-world settings. Most studies track droplet propagation rates, or have small sample sizes, or perform tests in rather unrealistic laboratory conditions. Some of them even simply press a pipe against a mask and measure the transmission rate. The reviewed 39 studies track (among other things) the impact of masks on real-world infection rates. They provide this finding: “Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty).” Those numbers are in line with what the CDC said, and also with my approximations. RD stands for reduction: it’s the difference between 17.4% (the risk of getting infected when not wearing a mask) and 3.1% (the risk of getting infected with a mask). That’s a reduction of over 80%, as the CDC says.
I was also mistaken when I said “low confidence interval.” I was erroneously referring to the certainty level, and here’s what the researchers say on that subject:
“The effect was very large, and the certainty of evidence could be rated up, but we made a conservative decision not to because of some inconsistency and risk of bias; hence, although the effect is qualitatively highly certain, the precise quantitative effect is low certainty.”
So, while it’s still the best defense we can use to decrease infection rates, in a legislative context, there is plenty of room to discuss what reasonable restrictions one should impose. However, as Blumie reminded me, masks (along with distancing and regularly washing your hands) are still the best everyday defense to decrease infection rates.
This week’s episode covers last week’s news stories involving the Supreme Court, including the election, COVID-19, the death penalty, and the census. The law starts at (08:49), but you’d miss your invitation to the Citizen’s Guide to the Supreme Court Holiday Party.
The Supreme Court is Not Reversing the Election, Part 2
Posted: December 13, 2020 by Nazim in Episode!This week’s episode discusses Texas v. Pennsylvania and Kelly v. Pennsylvania, the two recent failed attempts to reverse the election through the Supreme Court. The podcast welcomes a Supreme Court expert to help analyze the heart of this issue, and then Brett and Nazim discuss Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo. Law starts basically from the beginning.
